design of piles – united kingdom · pdf filehad to cope with a range of ... small...

ISSMGE - ETC 3 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. Leuven, Belgium, 28 & 29 April 2016

Chris Raison & Derek Egan – Design of piles – United Kingdom practice 1/24

Design of piles – United Kingdom practiceChris Raison

Raison Foster Associates, UK, [email protected]

Derek EganRemedy Geotechnics, UK, [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper gives an overview of the current UK practice for the design of piles. In most instances, design has adapted to conform to Eurocode 7. The obvious changes are the adoption of a limit state design based on the application of partial factors. Limit state design has been the normal approach for many years within the structural engineering field. However, this has been a very difficult step for practicing geotechnical engineers used to a traditional working or allowable stress design. Despite this, the basic design methods in daily use have not changed. Neither has the approach to parameter selection which was always based on adopting moderately conservative ground properties. Perhaps the biggest change that has been facedby UK geotechnical engineers is the focus on serviceability or SLS behavior rather than ultimate capacity as the controlling factor for many limit states.

1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY

1.1. Solid GeologyThe geology of the UK and the distribution of soil and rock types is complex. The solid geology as mapped by the British Geological Survey is shown in Figure 1. The UK can be broadly divided into two areas; the south and east comprising younger sedimentary deposits formed during the Jurassic, Cretaceous and Palaeogene periods. Many of these deposits have a relatively low strength and can be classified as soils [for example London Clay and Oxford Clay], but also include extensive deposits of Chalk. To the west of this area are Triassic rocks including Lias Clay, Mercia Mudstone [Keuper Marl], Sherwood Sandstone [Bunter Sandstone] running in a broad diagonal sweep across the UK, with Permian and Carboniferous rocks. Much of the north and west of the UK comprises older rocks of the Palaeozoic era.

Figure 1: UK Solid Geology



1.2. Drift and Superficial DepositsMost of the UK has been either directly or indirectly affected by glaciation which has resulted in extensive superficial deposits of glacial till, laminated clays and other glacial materials overlying the solid geology [Figure 2]. There are also major superficial deposits of estuarine soils in areas around some of the major river valleys, and around the coastal fringes.

Figure 2: Glaciation in the UK Figure 3: UK Mining ActivityAfter ICE manual of geotechnical engineering (2012)

1.3. Geotechnical PropertiesBecause of the complex geology and wide range of geological materials, the piling industry in the UK has had to cope with a range of materials, strengths and stiffness properties of the ground. This has resulted in a diverse range of piling techniques and types of pile.

Pile design methodology have been developed for the lower strength cohesive and granular soils, but also the weak mudstones and sandstones and in particular the weak Chalk deposits.

1.4. Mining ActivitiesMuch of the UK has been subject to mining works that can have a significant impact on pile foundations. These include historic shallow and deep mining within the coalfield areas [see Figure 3], but also extensive mining for minerals, iron ore, limestone and Chalk.



2. SOIL INVESTIGATION Methodology and techniques for site investigation and the associated laboratory testing have developed over many years to suite the diverse geology encountered across the UK and the extreme range of soil and rock strength and stiffness. The most common form of site investigation is based on small diameter boreholes formed using percussive cable tool techniques through soils, with rotary coring used for recovering core samples from the harder materials and bedrock. Both disturbed and undisturbed samples of soil can be recovered from the boreholes for laboratory testing. There is also extensive use of insitu testing carried out in the borehole or drillhole using the Standard Penetration test [SPT] equipment. Although a crude test, the simplicity of the equipment and relative low cost means that many test values can be obtained from a particular borehole. Laboratory testing of samples recovered from boreholes include a range of strength and stiffness testing depending on the quality of the recovered sample. In the UK, most cohesive soils are subject to quick undrained triaxial [QUT] testing to establish an undrained shear strength for the soils and oedometer consolidation tests to assess stiffness properties. Effective stress triaxial and shear box testing is also carried out to determine fundamental strength parameters for a range of soils and weaker rocks. Much more common now is the use of insitu cone penetration testing [CPT], often with pore pressure measurements. CPT profiling provides both a very accurate assessment of the soil strata, but allows strength and stiffness parameters to be obtained based on empirical relationships. Pressuremeter and dilatometer testing is also becoming more common for the larger projects.

3. PILING TECHNOLOGY & CLASSIFICATION The pile types used in the UK are diverse and mirror the wide range of geological materials present across the country influenced by the demands of development driven by regional population and/or industry centres. Broad trends in UK piling are presented below, however the piling market is highly dynamic in the UK and exceptions to the trends noted below abound. A good summary and description of available pile types in the UK is given by the ICE manual of geotechnical engineering (2012).

3.1. Displacement Piling Driven precast concrete piles are the predominant (and usually the cheapest) form of displacement piling and are very widely used for low to medium load applications. Typically designed as friction piles when founded in clay soils but also often designed as end bearing into coarse soils or onto rock. Driven cast in-situ piles can be particularly effective where founding into dense coarse soils. Some contractors also promote rotary displacement piling. Examples of driven steel tubular piles and H piles can be found but are not common.

3.2. Replacement Piling Replacement piling is dominated by continuous flight auger (CFA) piling which appears across the whole of the UK. Rotary bored piling is also widely used with, or without support fluid, as ground conditions dictate. Small diameter and micropile rock boring is supported by down-the-hole hammer (DTHH) technology, rotary percussive and rock-roller drilling.

4. NATIONAL DOCUMENTS Eurocode 7 was first published in 2004, was fully adopted in the UK in 2010 and has subsequently been re-published as British Standard BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013 together with the UK National Annex NA+A1:2014. For pile design, reference should also be made to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 together with other relevant Eurocodes and the UK national annexes. BS EN 1997-1 replaced the UK national standard BS 8004:1986, Code of practice for foundations which was withdrawn in 2010. Subsequent to this, the national standard has been revised and re-issued as BS 8004:2015 and is now fully compatible with all Eurocodes. Other UK national documents include execution codes BS EN 1536 for bored piles; BS EN 12699 for displacement piles; and BS EN 14199 for micropiles.



5. DESIGN METHOD ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EUROCODE 7

5.1. General principles In the UK, pile design is carried out in accordance with BS EN 1997-1 and the UK National Annex using Design Approach 1 for the STR and GEO limit states. In applying Design Approach 1, the design resistance for both Combination 1 and Combination 2 can be estimated using Equation (2.7c) in BS EN 1997-1: 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 = R {𝛾𝛾𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ; 𝑋𝑋𝑘𝑘 𝛾𝛾𝑀𝑀⁄ ; 𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑} 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅⁄ (1) Application of Design Approach 1 requires verification that limit states of rupture or excessive deformation will not occur with either of the following combination sets of partial factors: Combination 1: A1 + R1 + M1 Combination 2: A2 + R4 + M2 where + implies ‘to be combined with’. Because the M1 and R1 factors are set to unity, Combination 1 usually governs the STR and not the GEO limit state for pile axial bearing capacity design. Combination 2 usually governs the GEO and not the STR limit state except in some exceptional circumstances where negative shaft friction [NSF] may be very large. In Combination 2, partial factor set M2 can be used for calculating unfavourable actions on piles such as negative shaft friction or transverse loading.

5.2. Definitions and symbols For axial pile design in the UK the resistance factor method is used for axial pile loads, but for transverse loading, either the material factor method is used or factors are applied to actions or the effect of actions. For the design of piles loaded in compression, EC7 requires the following inequality to be satisfied for all ultimate limit state load cases and load combinations: 𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑑 ≤ 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 (2) In this inequality, Fd is the design action and Rd is the design resistance. The design action is obtained by multiplying representative permanent and variable actions (Gk and Qk) by their appropriate partial and combination factors γG, γQ and ψ such that: 𝐹𝐹𝑑𝑑 = 𝛾𝛾𝐺𝐺 𝐺𝐺𝑘𝑘 + 𝛾𝛾𝑄𝑄 𝑄𝑄𝑘𝑘 + ψ γ𝑄𝑄 Q𝑘𝑘 (3) Values for the partial load and combination factors are given in the UK National Annex to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005. In general, the UK has adopted the generic Eurocode partial load factors but has modified combination factors for accompanying variable actions for buildings and bridges. The values adopted for the partial load factors are given as follows: Table 1: Partial Factors on Actions or the Effect of Actions

Action UK NA Factor Set

A1 A2

Permanent Unfavourable 1.35 1.0

Favourable 1.0 1.0

Variable Unfavourable 1.5 1.3

Favourable 0 0

Accidental loads are factored in accordance with BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005.



BS 8004:2015 and the UK National Annex to BS EN 1997-1 allows the ultimate bearing resistance of a single pile to be derived in a number of different ways based on any of the following approaches:

Calculation based on ground parameters Direct empirical relationships with the results of field tests Static pile load tests Dynamic impact tests Pile driving formulae Wave equation analysis

The characteristic ultimate axial compressive bearing capacity or resistance Rt,k of a pile can be split into two components: 𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡,𝑘𝑘 = 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠,𝑘𝑘 + 𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏,𝑘𝑘 (4) Rs,k is the characteristic ultimate shaft resistance of the pile and Rb,k is the characteristic ultimate base resistance. Rt,k can be derived directly from static load or dynamic impact tests, pile driving formulae or wave equation analysis. Alternatively Rs,k and Rb,k can be individually assessed from instrumented static load tests or from empirical relationships with results of field tests. While all methods are acceptable, the most common approach adopted in the UK is calculation based on ground parameters obtained from insitu or laboratory tests on soil or rock. Rs,k is calculated from: 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠,𝑘𝑘 = ∑�𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗� 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑⁄ (5) As,j is the total circumferential area of the pile shaft (in layer j), qs,j is the average ultimate unit shaft resistance (in layer j) and γRd is a model factor. Rb,k is calculated from: 𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏,𝑘𝑘 = 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏 𝛾𝛾𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑⁄ (6) Ab is the total cross-sectional area of the pile base, qb is the ultimate unit base resistance and γRd is a model factor. Calculation of the average ultimate unit shaft resistance for each soil layer and the ultimate unit base resistance depends on the type of soil or rock and the effect of the pile installation on the ground. Calculation methods are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Note that design following prescriptive measures based on comparable experience or an observational design approach are not generally used in the UK for pile design.

5.3. Partial Material Factors The UK National Annex provides values for material factor sets M1 and M2 to be used for calculation methods based on ground parameters. For pile design these are mainly used for transverse loading, but may also be used for negative shaft friction. Values adopted are those given in BS EN 1997-1 as follows: Table 2: Partial Factors for Soil Parameters

Soil Parameter M1 M2

Friction Angle tan φ’ 1.0 1.25

Effective cohesion c’ 1.0 1.25

Undrained shear strength Cu 1.0 1.4

Unconfined strength UCS 1.0 1.4

Unit weight γ 1.0 1.0



5.4. Partial Resistance Factors The UK National Annex provides values for pile resistance factor sets R1 and R4 to be used together with model factors for the calculation method for axial pile capacity based on ground parameters. Alternate values for these factors have been provided to take account of different pile types and proportion of piles subject to static load testing. These partial factors are used to convert the characteristic resistances to design values for ultimate limit state calculations. They apply irrespective of the process by which the characteristic resistances are derived. Partial resistance factors have been provided in the UK National Annex. R1 factors are set equal to 1.0 for all cases. Different values have been given for factor set R4 for driven, bored and CFA piles as follows: Table 3 - Partial Resistance Factors for Driven Piles

Resistance R1 R4 (No SLS) R4 (SLS)

Base 1.0 1.7 1.5

Shaft Compression 1.0 1.5 1.3

Total 1.0 1.7 1.5

Shaft Tension 1.0 2.0 1.7

Table 4 - Partial Resistance Factors for Bored Piles


Base 1.0 2.0 1.7


Total 1.0 2.0 1.7


Table 5 - Partial Resistance Factors for CFA Piles


Base 1.0 2.0 1.7


Total 1.0 2.0 1.7


The higher values for the R4 partial load factors are to be used where no verification of SLS behaviour is proposed; lower values are available when any of the following apply:

Pile serviceability is to be verified by load tests, (preliminary and/or working) carried out on more than 1% of the constructed piles to loads not less than 1.5 times the representative load for which the piles are designed Settlement (or heave) is calculated using a reliable method Settlement (or heave) at the serviceability limit state is of no concern

To convert pile resistances estimated from ground parameters to characteristic values, the UK National Annex has adopted the use of a model factor γRd. Two values have been given for γRd; the normal value is 1.4 but this can be reduced to 1.2 if the ultimate pile resistance is to be verified by a static load test.



Variable values for both the model factor and resistance factors have been chosen to encourage more pile static load testing.

5.5. Pile design resistance Pile design resistance is computed following the guidelines given by BS EN 1997-1 as follows for axial compression: 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑑𝑑 = �𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏;𝑘𝑘

𝛾𝛾𝑏𝑏 + 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠;𝑘𝑘

𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠� 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 �𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐;𝑘𝑘

𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡� (7)

Tension: 𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑡𝑡,𝑑𝑑 = � 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠,𝑘𝑘

𝛾𝛾𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡� (8)

5.6. Correlation Factors The UK National Annex provides values for correlation factors to be used to derive the characteristic resistance of axially loaded piles based on calculated resistances from ground test results [boreholes or profiles], measured resistances from static load tests or measured resistances from dynamic load tests. The UK National Annex has modified the generic correlation factors given by BS EN 1997-1. Details are given below. Table 6 - Correlation Factors for Ground Test Results

Ground Test Results (n = number of profiles)

ξ for n = 1 2 3 4 5 7 10

ξ3 1.55 1.47 1.42 1.38 1.36 1.33 1.30

ξ4 1.55 1.39 1.33 1.29 1.26 1.20 1.15

For stiff and strong structures, BS EN 1997-1 allows an additional reduction to the correlation factors by dividing by 1.1. BS EN 1997-1 requires that the method used to determine the pile characteristic resistance from ground test results should be established from pile load tests and comparable experience. These correlation factors were intended to be used with CPT profiles or pressuremeter data but can also be applied to other test data such as profiles of SPT. Table 7 - Correlation Factors for Static Load Test Results

Static Pile Load Tests (n = number of tested piles)

ξ for n = 1 2 3 4 ≥5

ξ1 1.55 1.47 1.42 1.38 1.35

ξ2 1.55 1.35 1.23 1.15 1.08

For stiff and strong structures, BS EN 1997-1 allows an additional reduction to the correlation factors for static load tests by dividing by 1.1. Table 8 - Correlation Factors for Dynamic Load Test Results

Dynamic Impact Tests (n = number of tested piles)

ξ for n = ≥2 ≥5 ≥10 ≥15 ≥20

ξ5 1.94 1.85 1.83 1.82 1.81

ξ6 1.90 1.76 1.70 1.67 1.66



For dynamic impact tests, BS EN 1997-1 requires an additional model factor γRd to be applied. This is taken equal to 0.85 when using signal matching [CAPWAP], 1.1 when the test includes measurement of the pile head displacement, or 1.2 where no head displacement is measured. Although correlation factors are provided, the majority of design for piles in the UK is by calculation based on ground parameters obtained from insitu or laboratory tests on soil or rock. Ground test profiles such as CPT are common but usually used to provide ground parameters. Static and dynamic load test are also very common, but primarily used to verify pile resistances based on calculation or to provide direct measurement of shaft and end bearing resistance.

6. ULS DESIGN CALCULATIONS BASED ON GROUND PARAMETERS

6.1. Introduction For the calculation method based used in the UK, the characteristic ultimate shaft and base resistances are calculated from ground parameters obtained either from insitu or laboratory tests on soil or rock, or direct assessment from back analysis of static or dynamic load testing. For horizontal loading of piles, three calculation options based on ground parameters are permitted; calculation using design soil and rock parameters obtained from the characteristic values and the partial material factor set M2 together with the partial load factor set A2 [Combination 2]; calculation using characteristic soil and rock parameters with partial material factor set M1 [all factors equal to 1.0] together with partial load factor set A1 [Combination 1]; and calculation with all material and load factors equal to 1.0 with partial load factor set A1 applied to the effect of the actions.

6.2. Axial compression of a single pile Pile design by calculation based on ground parameters is carried out using theoretical calculations for the shaft friction and end bearing as follows: 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑗𝑗 𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎𝑇𝑇 𝛿𝛿𝑗𝑗 + 𝑐𝑐′𝑤𝑤,𝑗𝑗 (9) 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏 = 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑏𝑏 + 0.5 𝛾𝛾 𝑁𝑁𝛾𝛾 𝐷𝐷 + 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐′ (10) Ks,j is an earth pressure coefficient against the pile shaft, δj is the angle of interface friction and cw,j is the effective adhesion between the pile and soil, σ’v,j is the average vertical effective stress acting in the soil in layer j, D is the diameter of the pile base, Nq, Nγ and Nc are bearing capacity factors, c’ is the effective cohesion for the ground below the base of the pile, γ is the unit weight of the soil and σ’v,b is the vertical effective stress at the pile base. For pile design, these equations are usually simplified as follows: For coarse granular soils: 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑗𝑗 𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎𝑇𝑇 𝛿𝛿𝑗𝑗 (11) sometimes written as: 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝛽𝛽𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑗𝑗 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑜𝑜𝑒𝑒 𝛽𝛽𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎𝑇𝑇 𝛿𝛿𝑗𝑗 (12) 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏 = 𝑁𝑁𝑞𝑞 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑏𝑏 (13) Typical values for Ks vary between 0.5 and 1.0 for bored and CFA piles increasing to between 1.0 and 2.0 for large displacement driven piles. For piles with concrete cast directly against the ground, δj can be taken equal to the soil friction angle φ’. For preformed concrete or steel piles, δj is often taken between 0.67 to 0.9 times φ’ or with a lower limit equal to φ’cv. Design values for the bearing capacity factor Nq can be obtained from a wide range of theories. In the UK, Nq values are usually taken from Berezantzev (1961) for CFA and bored piles, or Brinch Hansen (1961) for driven piles. Typical values for Nq related to the insitu friction angle φ’ are given in Figure 4 for both theories.



Figure 4: Berezantzev and Brinch Hansen Bearing Capacity Factors Nq

For fine cohesive soils and weak weathered mud rocks [mudstones and clayey siltstones], the ultimate shaft friction and end bearing can be obtained from total stress parameters as follows:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝛼𝛼𝑗𝑗 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢,𝑗𝑗 (14)

𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏 = 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢,𝑏𝑏 (15)

αj is an empirical coefficient or adhesion factor and Cu,j is the undrained shear strength of the soil in layer j, Cu,b is the undrained shear strength of the soil at the pile base and Nc is a bearing capacity factor. Note that Cu for mud rocks can be assumed equal to 0.5 UCS.

Typical values for the adhesion factor αj can vary between 1.0 for low strength clays, 0.45 to 0.6 for typical medium to high strength overconsolidated clays and 0.2 and 0.3 for very high strength clay to very weak mudstone. Nc can vary between 6.0 and 10.0 depending on the depth of the pile base, but is often taken equal to 9.0.

For stronger rocks, ultimate shaft friction and end bearing can be obtained from the following empirical relationships:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = a �𝑈𝑈𝐶𝐶𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗�𝑏𝑏 (16)

𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏 = 0.5 𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝑈𝑈𝐶𝐶𝑈𝑈𝑏𝑏 (17)

Factors a and b are empirical, UCSj is the unconfined compressive strength of the rock in layer j, UCSb is the unconfined compressive strength of the rock at the pile base and Nc is a bearing capacity factor.

For typical weak sandstone or limestone rock, factor a can vary between 0.2 and 0.5 and factor b is usually taken equal to 0.5 with UCS units in MPa. End bearing factor Nc can vary between 6.0 and 10.0 depending on the depth of the pile base, but is often taken equal to 6.0 to allow for the effect of rock fracturing.

For Chalk, ultimate shaft friction and end bearing can be obtained from the following empirical relationships:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝛽𝛽𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑗𝑗 (18)

𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏 = 200 N (19)

βj is an empirical factor and σ’v,j is the average vertical effective stress acting in the soil in layer j, and N is the average measured SPT blow count for the Chalk at the pile base.



For very weak Chalk, factor βj is normally taken equal to 0.8, but is reduced to 0.45 for extremely weak Chalk. For the end bearing, qb is related to the N value at the pile base times an empirical factor usually taken as 200.

6.3. Axial tension of a single pilePile design by calculation for axial tension is based on the same theoretical equations used for shaft friction in compression as follows:

For coarse granular soils:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝐾𝐾𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑗𝑗 𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎𝑇𝑇 𝛿𝛿𝑗𝑗 (20)

sometimes written as:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝛽𝛽𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑗𝑗 (21)

For fine cohesive soils and weak weathered mud rocks [mudstones and clayey siltstones], the ultimate shaft friction can be obtained from total stress parameters as follows:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝛼𝛼𝑗𝑗 𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢,𝑗𝑗 (22)

For stronger rocks, ultimate shaft friction can be obtained from the following empirical relationship:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = a �𝑈𝑈𝐶𝐶𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗�𝑏𝑏 (23)

For Chalk, ultimate shaft friction can be obtained from the following empirical relationship:

𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 = 𝛽𝛽𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣,𝑗𝑗 (24)

6.4. Lateral loading of a single pileBS EN 1997-1 requires demonstration that a pile will support the design horizontal load with adequate safety against failure and requires the following inequality to be satisfied for all ultimate limit state load cases and load combinations:

𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟,𝑑𝑑 ≤ 𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟,𝑑𝑑 (25)

For the calculation method in the UK, two approaches are referred to by BS 8004:2015 and commonly used; limit equilibrium analysis based on the approach of Broms (1964) or Brinch Hansen (1961); soil-structure interaction using beam-element, finite element or boundary element software.

For the limit equilibrium method, possible failure mechanisms would include short piles rotating or translating as a rigid body, or longer piles with bending failure of the pile accompanied by local displacement of the ground near to the top of the pile as illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Typical Limit Equilibrium Mechanisms



Limit equilibrium methods have the benefit of being straightforward and quick to use and only require soil strength parameters. There is a long history of use of these methods for routine applications. For ULS checks, partial load factors are applied either to the actions or to the effects of the actions [bending moment and shear force], and partial material factors are applied to the soil strength parameters.

Part of the difficulty in using simple limit equilibrium models is that real piles have flexural stiffness [EI] and do not act as a rigid body. Transverse behaviour is also controlled by the fixity at the head of the pile as illustrated in Figure 6. Modelling both issues usually requires calculations based on the use of beam element or finite element methods.

Figure 6: Real Pile Behaviour

Options for beam element software in the UK include ALP and WALLAP. For both programs, the pile is modelled as simple beam elements connected by nodes. The ground is modelled as horizontal springs with stiffness related to the Young’s modulus of the soil with a limiting earth pressure related to the ground strength [Cu, UCS, c’ or φ’]. In practice, analysis can be carried out using factored horizontal actions or by factoring the effect of the actions [Combination 1] or factored ground strength [Combination 2].

In many situations, the particular limit state controlling pile horizontal loading is the ability of the structure to cater for the pile head movements. This requires knowledge of the likely SLS pile movements. Because of this, it is often more efficient to carry out an SLS analysis with unfactored design actions and ground strength. For the ULS checks, partial load factors can then be applied to the effect of the actions [bending moment and shear force]. Figure 7 shows a typical design model. It is possible to include for the effect of head fixity provided by pile caps, ground beams and the pile group effect. One method that is sometimes used is illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 7: Typical Model Figure 8: Pile Head Fixity



Limiting pressures are usually defined using Brinch Hansen (1961) coefficients Kq and Kc [see Figure 9]where the horizontal limit pressure is defined as follows:

𝑞𝑞ℎ,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 = 𝐾𝐾𝑞𝑞 𝜎𝜎′𝑣𝑣 + 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐′ (26)

Figure 9: Brinch Hansen Coefficients Kq and Kc

In the UK it is very rare to carry out horizontal load tests for piles. Part of the reason is the significantly different pile head fixity, axial load in the pile shaft and the level of application of the lateral load between the conditions during a load test and those to be applied to the pile under service conditions. To carry out a horizontal load test with a representative axial load and the correct head fixity can be extremely costly and time consuming.

6.5. Negative Shaft FrictionNegative shaft friction or downdrag loads can develop on a pile shaft when the settlement of the ground surrounding a pile exceeds the movement of the pile. This is particularly relevant to piles installed through low strength and highly compressibility soils which are subject to upfilling or are affected by groundwater lowering. In the UK, there is a higher risk from negative shaft friction where there are deep layers of superficial deposits of estuarine soils in areas around some of the major river valleys and around the costal fringes. Although downdrag may have little effect on the ultimate resistance of a pile, Poulos (2008), itdoes impact on the structural design and influences the pile serviceability.

The depth at which there is no relative movement between the pile and the surrounding ground is known as the neutral plane which occurs where the ground settlement Δg at a particular depth equals the pile settlement Δp at the same depth. This is illustrated in Figure 10.

The characteristic force acting on a pile subject to downdrag load can be estimated as follows:

𝐹𝐹𝑘𝑘 = 𝐺𝐺𝑘𝑘 + 𝑄𝑄𝑘𝑘 + W𝑘𝑘 + 𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝐹𝐹,𝑘𝑘 (27)

Wk is the characteristic self-weight of the pile [usually ignored] and FNSF,k is the additional characteristic compressive force due to the negative shaft friction.

The characteristic negative shaft friction force over the length of pile subject to downdrag is given by:



𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝐹𝐹,𝑘𝑘 = ∑�𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠,𝑗𝑗 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,𝑘𝑘,𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑢𝑟𝑟� dz (28)

As,j is the total circumferential area of the pile shaft (in layer j), qs,k,sup is the superior average ultimate unit shaft friction (in layer j) and dz is the layer thickness. BS8004:2015 defines the superior characteristic unit shaft friction as a cautious upper estimate of the mean that has a 5% probability of being exceeded during the design working life.

Fig 10: Negative Shaft Friction

For relatively shallow depths of settling soil where FNSF,k is relatively small compared to the characteristic load on the head of the pile, it is conservative to assume a position of the neutral plane at the base of the compressible soil and to carry out a simple calculation to check that the available pile design resistance Rt,dexceeds the sum of the design action Fd plus the additional design compressive force due to the negative shaft friction FNSF,k.

More rigorous analysis is possible [using soil-interaction software such as PILE] which allows the position of the neutral axis and the length of pile shaft affected by negative shaft friction to be evaluated for single piles subject to settlement of the surrounding ground. However these methods require good knowledge of the magnitude and distribution of ground settlement and how this may change over the design life of the piles, information that in practice is seldom available. It is also important to understand the interaction between ground and pile and between adjacent piles. To carry out the analysis it is necessary to estimate the strength and stiffness parameters for the ground [settling ground and the ground providing the support] and the likely stiffness of the pile element.

It is self-evident that evaluation of negative shaft friction under ULS and SLS conditions is not possible using pile load tests and can only be carried out using analytical procedures based on ground parameters, pile resistance evaluated by direct correlation with profiles of ground test results or comparable experience.

6.6. Problems not covered by National Annexes and future developmentsParticular issues and problems not adequately covered by BS EN 1997-1 and the UK National Annex include design of pile groups for axial and horizontal loads, piled raft foundations and design of piles for cyclic and dynamic loads including seismic conditions.



7. ULS DESIGN BASED ON PROFILES OF GROUND TEST RESULTSThe UK National Annex provides values for correlation factors to be used to derive the characteristic resistance of axially loaded piles based on direct empirical derivation from ground test results comprising borehole or ground test profiles such as CPT, PMT or other field tests, However these methods are not generally used in the UK for pile design. Field tests are more commonly used to derive values for calculation based on ground parameters.

8. DESIGN BASED ON LOAD TESTSAlthough correlation factors are provided, the majority of design for piles in the UK is by calculation based on ground parameters. Static and dynamic load test are also very common, but primarily used to verify pile resistances based on calculation using ground parameters or to provide direct measurement of shaft and end bearing resistance.

Methods of design based on either static or dynamic load tests are generally not used in the UK for pile design. Part of this is due to cultural reasons, but the principal reason is that ground conditions in many areas of the UK are generally complex and variable making design by load test difficult and uneconomic.To adequately cover the range of different pile diameters, variable lengths and the potential range of design actions would require a large number of pile load tests to be carried out for a particular project.

Other difficulties arise for situations where there is likely to be significant negative shaft friction, or where subsequent stages of the construction such as basement excavation are expected to alter the vertical and horizontal stresses in the ground and reduce the ultimate pile resistance.

9. DESIGN BASED ON EXPERIENCEDesign following prescriptive measures based on comparable experience, generic tabulated databases or an observational design approach are not generally used in the UK for pile design.

10. SLS DESIGNServiceability limit states should be verified according to BS 8004:2015 and BS EN 1997:2004+A1:2013 by ensuring pile performance is in accordance with the following inequality:

𝐸𝐸𝑑𝑑 ≤ 𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 (29)

Ed is the design effects of actions [taking into account negative shaft friction if applicable] specified in the serviceability criterion; and Cd is the limiting value of the relevant serviceability criterion.

As a simplification, pile serviceability behaviour can be approximated based on the observation that the ultimate shaft resistance is usually fully mobilised at very small relative displacements between pile and the ground [typically less than 1% of the pile diameter], but mobilisation of the ultimate end bearing requires much larger displacements [typically 10% of the pile diameter or more]. A typical schematic is given in Figure 11. Provided the representative load acting on the head of the pile is less than the ultimate shaft resistance, then pile settlement will be shaft controlled and likely to be limited to less than 1% of the pile diameter.

Figure 11: Approximate Load-Settlement Behaviour



For serviceability checks it is common practice in the UK to limit the representative load on a pile to its characteristic shaft resistance and discount the base resistance. The relevant serviceability criterion Cd is the shaft resistance of the pile calculated for ultimate limit state conditions. The settlement of a pile foundation may therefore be verified by satisfying the following BS 8004:2015 serviceability criterion: 𝐹𝐹𝑐𝑐,𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 ≤ 𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠,𝑘𝑘 𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠,𝑁𝑁𝑆𝑆𝑁𝑁⁄ (30) Fc,rep is the representative value of the compressive force applied to the pile in its serviceability limit state, Rs,k is the characteristic value of the ultimate shaft resistance and γs,SLS is a partial factor for shaft resistance in the serviceability limit. γs,SLS is often given a value between 1.1 and 1.2. For piles that mobilise the majority of the ultimate resistance from end bearing, to evaluate SLS behaviour will require either static load testing or calculation for verification. There are several calculation methods for pile settlement in common use in the UK piling industry:

Poulos method based on t-z curves – Poulos & Mattes (1968 & 1969) Randolph closed form solutions – Randolph & Wroth (1979) Chin extrapolation – Chin (1970) Fleming CEMSET method – Fleming (1992) Boundary element method – Bond & Harris (2008)

However all analytical methods require good knowledge of the interaction between ground and pile and between adjacent piles, together with estimates of the strength and stiffness parameters for the ground and the likely stiffness of the pile element.

11. STRUCTURAL DESIGN BS 8004:2015 requires that in general structural design for concrete piles should conform to BS EN 1992 and steel piles to BS EN 1993. Individual piles should consider the compressive and tensile resistance of the pile shaft, shear, bending, torsional resistance and buckling of the pile shaft as appropriate. The design should also take account of weakening of the pile material as a result of corrosion or other forms of deterioration. Particular areas to be covered should include the connection of the pile head to a pile cap or slab, combinations of axial load, tension and moment and serviceability issues such as concrete crack widths. In the UK, some of the supplementary requirements of BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014 have conflicted with existing approaches for the structural design of piles that have been demonstrated over many years to be satisfactory. BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014 also does not specifically cater for pile constructed with mortar or grout. BS 8004:2015 has provided alternative rules as follows:

Clause 2.3.4.2 requires that for cast in place piles without permanent casing, the diameter should be reduced by 5% for structural design. BS 8004:2004 states that this reduction is unnecessary when the execution of these piles conforms to BS EN 1536 or BS EN 14199 as this can be taken as satisfactory demonstration of ‘other provisions’. Clause 9.8.5 conflicts with BS EN 1536:2010+A1:2015 regarding longitudinal reinforcement bars. BS 8004:2004 states BS EN 1536:2010+A1:2015 should take precedence. Clause 2.4.2.5 provides partial factors for materials for foundations, including cast-in-place piles without permanent casing. A factor kf has been introduced as a multiplier to the partial factor for concrete γC, with a recommended value of 1.1 given by the UK National Annex. BS 8004:2004 confirms that this factor should be used in permanent and transient design situations.

BS 8004:2015 also confirms that the design compressive resistance Rc,d of a cast in place pile may be calculated from the following expression: 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐,𝑑𝑑 = 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑 𝐴𝐴𝑐𝑐,𝑑𝑑 + 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠,𝑑𝑑 (31)



𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑 = �𝛼𝛼𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓 𝛾𝛾𝑐𝑐

� (32)

𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑑𝑑 = 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑘𝑘

𝛾𝛾𝑠𝑠 (33)

fck and fcd are the characteristic and design compressive strengths of the reinforced concrete, fyk and fyd are the characteristic and design yield strengths of the steel reinforcement and Ac,d and As,d are the cross-sectional area of the reinforced concrete and compressive reinforcement. αcc is a factor taking into account the long-term reduction in strength of reinforced concrete and γC and γS are partial factors to be applied to the strength of the concrete and the reinforcement. Unreinforced sections of pile can be checked using the same equations but adopting αcc for plain concrete and taking As,d as zero.

12. QUALITY CONTROL, MONITORING AND TESTING PRACTICE The execution of pile quality in the UK benefits from the practical and widely used Institution of Civil Engineers Specification for Piling and Embedded Retaining Walls (SPERW2), which covers all of the commonly used piling techniques and is supported by the execution standards. Most medium and large diameter piling rigs are now fully instrumented which ensures installation is carefully controlled and the installation parameters are routinely collected and available for supervisory review. Automatic controlling and recording of micropile construction is much less common.

12.1. Displacement Piling

12.1.1. Geotechnical Performance Driven displacement piles are usually installed to a predetermined set or drive resistance. For preformed piles (concrete, steel etc.) a proportion of piles (typically between 2% and 10%) may then be dynamically load tested (with or without signal matching) to provide validation of load capacity. (In this regard it is true to say the procedure and values of correlation factors used in practice are not fully reflected in the UK National Annex). Cast in place displacement piles are more usually statically load tested (usually at a rate of 1%) to working load, supplemented by sacrificial tests in larger projects where the economics of such tests become more beneficial.

12.1.2. Structural Integrity Materials tests (concrete, steel etc.) are usually rigorously applied during pile construction. Installed pile integrity is usually confirmed with low strain methods (typically on between 25% and 100% of piles), and as a by-product of dynamic testing.

12.2. Replacement Piling

12.2.1. Geotechnical Performance CFA and rotary bored piles will usually undergo a suite of static load tests in accordance with the UK National Annex requirements relating to the values of model and resistance factors applied in the static design by calculation. Although it is difficult to be categorical, in broad terms for piling projects of less than about 20 piles there may be no static testing, up to around 200 piles, working load tests at no less than 1% will be undertaken. For larger projects the economies of reduced pile length offset against the cost of undertaking sacrificial load tests with drive the testing strategy.

12.2.2. Structural Integrity Materials tests (concrete, steel etc.) are usually rigorously applied during pile construction. Installed pile integrity on most small to medium diameter CFA and bored piles is usually confirmed with low strain methods (typically 100% of piles). In larger diameter piles cross hole sonic logging, or more recently thermal profiling may be used.



12.3. General CommentApart from the very occasional demonstration or academic research project, pile design in the UK is universally based on static design calculations using ground parameters obtained from insitu and laboratory testing. Load testing, whether static or dynamic, is then used confirm the expected pile performance. Design by testing is almost never undertaken.

13. PARTICULAR NATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND DATABASESIn the UK there is no publicly available database of pile load behaviour.

14. DESIGN EXAMPLEThis design example refers to a quay side development within a major city in the UK immediately adjacent to a river where ground conditions comprise up to 7m depth of soft and very soft silt/clay with cobbles over a 4m to 5m thick layer of highly compressible very soft organic silt/clay. These materials overlie medium dense sands and gravels over very stiff gravelly clay with cobbles [Glacial Till] as shown in Figure X1.The upper surface of the Glacial Till was found to be highly variable in level.

Figure X1: Geological Cross Section

The development comprises a multi-storey building for mixed commercial and residential use. Although the ground conditions were suitable for driven precast piles, for environmental reasons and to keep noise and vibrations to a minimum, the foundations were proposed as 450mm CFA bored piles. Pile loads were specified as a representative 800kN per pile comprising dead, live and wind loading as shown in Table X1.Note that for buildings, the UK National Annex to BS EN 1990 specifies a combination ψ1 factor for accompanying variable load equal to 0.5. There was a need to check both live load and the wind load as the leading variable. Resulting pile axial compression design action for Combination 2 varies between 871kN and 935kN per pile.



Table X1: Assessed Pile Load Combinations to BS 1997-1

Specified Pile Loads GEO STR

Load Axial Axial Axial Nominal DA1-C2 DA1-C1

Type Dead Live Wind Axial Ed Ed kN kN kN kN kN kN

C1 350 450 0 800 935 1148 C2 370 90 340 800 871 1077

GEO Checks

UK DA1-C2 - GEO UK DA1-C2 - GEO

Perm Variable Wind Ed Variable Wind Ed 1.0 1.3 0.65 kN 0.65 1.3 kN

350 585 0 935 293 0 643 370 117 221 708 59 442 871

STR Checks

UK DA1-C1 - STR UK DA1-C1 - STR

Perm Variable Wind Ed Variable Wind Ed 1.35 1.5 0.75 kN 0.75 1.5 kN

473 675 0 1148 338 0 810 500 135 255 890 68 510 1077

The original site investigation for the development was typical for UK projects comprising a number of boreholes located across the site which were taken down to depths up to 30m below the existing ground level. Insitu tests comprised SPT measurements at regular intervals in all materials. In the clay/silt materials, undisturbed tube samples were recovered to allow laboratory shear strength testing. Plotted results of the insitu and laboratory test results are shown in Figure X2. Open symbols are data taken from the adjacent site. For the undrained shear strength plot, square symbols represent shear strength based on the empirical relationship Cu = f1 x (N)60 where factor f1 has been taken equal to 5.0 for the overburden clay/silt and 4.5 for the Glacial Till. Circle symbols are shear strength measured in laboratory quick undrained triaxial tests on undisturbed samples taken from the boreholes. The plots show typical assessed design lines for the different soil strata.

Figure X2: Insitu and Laboratory Test Data



For granular soils, it is normal to correct the SPT data for the overburden stress and then use empirical relationships between the corrected (N1)60 and relative density Dr and friction angle φ’. Figure X3 shows a schematic relationships between the measure SPT data and other ground parameters. Figure X4 shows typical relationships between the measure SPT data and φ’ based on Stroud (1989) and Skempton (1986).

Figure X3: Typical SPT Relationships Figure X4: (N1)60 versus φ’

Additional site investigation was carried out using CPT to determine ground conditions adjacent to the pile load test positions. These provided estimates of the friction angle φ’ for the granular soils and undrained shear strength Cu for the cohesive materials. Assessed ground parameters are given in Figure X5 for P-213.

Figure X5: CPT Interpretation at Test Pile Location



Both static load testing and dynamic load testing were carried out on a number of piles located across the site. Results are summarised as follows for P-213:

Table X2: Static and Dynamic Load Tests

PileNumber

PileLength

(m)

PileDiameter

(mm)

Length in Dense

mLoadTest

TestLoad(kN)

HeadDeflection

(mm)

213 26.0 450 15.0 StaticMaintained

10001400

5.69.0

DynamicMobilised 1715

Back analysis of the test pile was carried out based on the local ground parameters evaluated from the adjacent CPT profile. Bearing capacity checks are given in Table X3. These checks included for the short term support from the fill material and the underlying very soft silt/clay fill and alluvial clay/silt [treated as a single layer]. Results suggested a typical ultimate shaft resistance of 1724kN and end bearing of just 172kN giving a total ultimate pile resistance of 1896kN. The results of this calculation check indicate that the dynamic impact load test was not fully mobilising the pile resistance and there was a typical shortfall of about 10% on this site. Experience suggests that the reliability of dynamic load testing can be poor for cohesive ground conditions and further checks are often necessary.

Table X3: Bearing Capacity Check – Test Conditions

To better assess the results of the pile load testing, further back analysis was carried out using the CEMSET method to investigate the measured load-settlement relationship following the procedure set out by Fleming (1992). The method is based on modelling the pile using two hyperbolic relationships to represent the shaft friction and the end bearing behaviour. The method allows for the compression of the pile shaft under load and can cater for a low friction length of the pile shaft. The shaft friction stiffness is modelled using a shaft flexibility factor Ms, and the end bearing by the Young’s modulus Eb beneath the pile toe. Shaft and end bearing resistance have been taken from the bearing capacity calculation. All input data and plotted results are shown in Figure X6. Adjustments have been made to Ms and Eb to get a good fit between the computation and the measured load-settlement curves.



Figure X6: CEMSET Back Analysis of Proof Load Test

The good correlation between measured load-settlement behaviour and the calculation for shaft, end bearing resistance and pile settlement suggests that the choice of ground parameters for the design are consistent and reasonable and can be used for prediction of other piles with varying length and load.

The substantial thickness of highly compressible and low strength Made Ground and Alluvium at this site necessitated consideration of negative shaft friction. Likely changes to the existing ground level were expected to be small, but could result in imposed load varying between about 5kPa and 15kPa. Estimates of the stiffness of the Made Ground and Alluvium were based on the empirical relationship between Young’s modus E’ and undrained shear strength Cu given as E’ = 200 x Cu. This suggested a typical soil stiffness of 3MPa for the Made Ground and 1MPa for the Alluvium. Simple calculation checks can be made



using the relationship Δ = q x H/E’ where Δ is the settlement, q the imposed load and H is the layer thickness.This gave a range of potential ground settlement between 30mm and 100mm.

Interaction checks were carried out using the Oasys Limited computer program PILE based on total ground settlement of either 30mm or 100mm. Two options for the negative shaft friction loading for the very soft soils were adopted; an upper bound strength; a worst credible strength. Typical results for the worst case ground settlement and worst credible negative shaft friction for P-213 are given in Figure X7. This showed a worst case pile head displacement of 10mm and a neutral plane close to the base of the very soft silt/clay.

Figure X7: Typical Soil-Pile Interaction Analysis

Settlement checks and consideration of the likely long term changes to the vertical effective stress following completion of the pile installation concluded that the likelihood of long term damaging ground movements as low and that simple approximations to deal with negative shaft friction could be adopted for the pile design. To establish the BS EN 1997-1 pile design resistance, checks were therefore carried out ignoring all support from the upper compressible soils. Results are given in Table X4. These confirm a design resistance Rd equal to 966kN sufficiently close to the required worst case design action Ed of 971kN.



Table X4: Bearing Capacity Check – Service Conditions

15. REFERENCES

BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: General rules

NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, UK National Annex to Eurocode 7

BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Eurocode: Basis of structural design

BS 8004:2015, Code of practice for foundations

BS_EN_1536_2010+A1_2015, Execution of special geotechnical works – Bored piles

BS EN 12699:2015, Execution of special geotechnical work – Displacement piles

BS EN 14199:2015, Execution of special geotechnical works – Micropiles



Burland J, Chapman T, Skinner H, and Brown M (editors) (2012). ICE manual of geotechnical engineering, Volume I, Geotechnical Engineering Principles, Problematic Soils and Site Investigation. London: ICE Publishing, 2012, ISBN 978-0-7277-5707-4 Burland J, Chapman T, Skinner H, and Brown M (editors) (2012). ICE manual of geotechnical engineering, Volume II, Geotechnical Design, Construction and Verification. London: ICE Publishing, 2012, ISBN 978-0-7277-5709-8 Berezantzev V G, Khristoforov V S and Golubkov V N (1961). Load bearing capacity and deformation of piled foundations. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Paris, pp. 11-15 Brinch Hansen J (1961). A general formula for bearing capacity. Ingeniøren, Vol 5, No. 2, June 1961 Broms B B (1964). The lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 1964, 90(SM3), pp123–156 Broms B B (1964). The lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, 1964, 90(SM2), pp 27–63 Brinch Hansen J (1961). The ultimate resistance of rigid piles against transversal forces. Copenhagen: The Danish Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin No. 12, 1961, 16 pp Poulos H G (2008). A practical design approach for piles with negative skin friction. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 161, February 2008, Issue GE1, pp 19–27 Poulos H G and Mattes N S (1968). The Settlement Behaviour of Single Axially Loaded Incompressible Piles and Piers. Géotechnique, Volume 18, pp. 351-371 Poulos H G and Mattes N S (1969). The Behaviour of Axially Loaded End-bearing Piles. Géotechnique, Volume 19, No. 2, pp. 285-300 Randolph M F and Wroth C P (1979). An analysis of the vertical deformation of pile groups, Géotechnique, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp 423–439 Chin F V (1970). Estimation of the ultimate load of piles not carried to failure. Proceedings of the 2nd Southeast Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, 1970, pp 81–90. Fleming W G K (1992). A new method for single pile settlement prediction and analysis, Géotechnique, 1992, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp 411–425 Bond A J and Harris A J (2008). Decoding Eurocode 7, London: Taylor and Francis, 2008, ISBN 978-0-415-40948-3 Institution of Civil Engineers. ICE Specification for piling and embedded retaining walls (2nd edition, 2007), London: Thomas Telford Publishing, ISBN 978-0-7277-3358-0 Stroud M A (1989).The standard penetration test – its application and interpretation, Penetration testing in the UK, Thomas Telford, London, pp 29–49 Skempton A W (1986). Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, ageing and overconsolidation, Géotechnique, 1986, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp 425–447 Oasys Limited PILE [Computer Software] Oasys Limited ALP [Computer Software] Geosolve Limited WALLAP [Computer Software]

design of piles – united kingdom · pdf filehad to cope with a range of ... small...

Documents